the citizen’s perspective on the use of ai in government

The Citizen’s Perspective on the Use of AI in Government BCG Digital Government Benchmarking

FOR MEDIA USE ONLY. EMBARGOED UNTIL 00:01 ET ON 1 MARCH 2019.

Boston Consulting Group (BCG) is a global management consulting firm and the world’s leading advisor on business strategy. We partner with clients from the private, public, and not-for-profit sectors in all regions to identify their highest-value opportunities, address their most critical challenges, and transform their enterprises. Our customized approach combines deep insight into the dynamics of companies and markets with close collaboration at all levels of the client organization. This ensures that our clients achieve sustainable competitive advantage, build more capable organizations, and secure lasting results. Founded in 1963, BCG is a private company with offices in more than 90 cities in 50 countries. For more information, please visit bcg.com.


March 2019

Miguel Carrasco, Steven Mills, Adam Whybrew, and Adam Jura

The Citizen’s Perspective on the Use of AI in Government BCG Digital Government Benchmarking


2 The Citizen’s Perspective on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Government

AT A GLANCE

Artificial intelligence has the potential to transform government policy and service delivery, generating enormous value for citizens. Many governments are already implementing a surprisingly wide variety of AI applications, but to fully realize the benefits, governments need to build citizens’ confidence and trust in AI.

What Citizens Think Citizens generally support government use of AI. While the benefits of operational efficiency (in areas such as transport and service delivery) are understood and meet little resistance from most people, fewer are comfortable with the use of AI in more sensitive decision-making environments such as health care and justice. Most worrying to citizens are the ethical issues, lack of transparency, and the potential impact of AI on employment.

How Governments Should RespondLevels of trust in government appear to be a critical factor in citizens’ willingness to embrace AI technologies. Governments must work with communities and business to establish clear frameworks for its safe and ethical use. Finally, they must engage citizens in the journey.


Boston Consulting Group 3

Can you prevent algorithms based on historical data from perpetuating bias?

Artificial intelligence (AI) has beneficial applications in many areas of government, including traffic management—with data collected in real time

from traffic lights, CCTV cameras, and other sources enabling traffic flow optimiza-tion—and customer service centers manned by robots that use AI to answer ques-tions. Algorithms and machine-learning techniques, in which computers analyze large amounts of data to detect statistical patterns and develop models that can be used to make accurate predictions, are rapidly becoming key tools for governments.

However, despite the obvious opportunities for efficiency and effectiveness, the role of AI, automation, and robotics in government policy and service delivery remains contentious. For example, can you prevent algorithms based on historical data from perpetuating or reinforcing decades of conscious or unconscious bias? When is it acceptable to use “black box” deep-learning models, where the logic used for deci-sions cannot possibly be explained or understood even by the data scientists de-signing the underlying algorithms?

To gain insights into citizens’ attitudes about and perceptions of the use of AI in government, BCG surveyed more than 14,000 internet users around the world as part of its biannual Digital Government Benchmarking study. BCG asked this broad cross section of citizens to tell us:

• How comfortable they are with certain decisions being made by a computer rather than a human being

• What concerns they have about the use of AI by governments

• How concerned they are about the impact of AI on the economy and jobs

What We FoundOur key findings center around the types of AI use cases survey respondents indicat-ed they would support, the way that attitudes about government and demographics affect support, and the ethical and privacy aspects of using AI in government.

• Citizens were most supportive of using AI for tasks such as transport and traffic optimization, predictive maintenance of public infrastructure, and customer service activities. The majority did not support AI for sensitive decisions associat-ed with the justice system, such as parole board and sentencing recommendations.



• People in less developed economies and places where perceived levels of corruption are higher also tended to be more supportive of the use of AI. For example, the citizens surveyed in India, China, and Indonesia indicated the strongest support for government applications of AI, while the citizens surveyed in Switzerland, Estonia, and Austria offered the weakest support.

• Demographic patterns tend to mirror general attitudes toward technology. Millennials and urban dwellers, therefore, demonstrated the greatest support for government use of AI, while older people and those in more rural and remote locations showed less support.

Use case Disagree Agree Netperception

0 5025 75–50–75 –25

60%

57%

53%

46%

43%

39%

32%

23%

23%

19%

10%

–15%

–22%

Using real-time information to predict issues,optimize, and reroute traffic

Predicting breakdowns and maintenancerequirements for machinery and equipment

Matching job seekers with available jobs

Determining tax assessments and tax payable

Providing virtual assistants to offer customer service and answer general inquiries

Identifying potential fraud or noncompliance inadministration of government services

Assessing travelers for additional security screening

Determining eligibility and amounts for welfareand social security entitlements

Assessing medical images and making diagnoses (e.g., identifying cancer from scans)

Determining eligibility for visas and immigration

Making recommendations for medical treatment

Making parole board decisions

Determining innocence or guilt in a criminal trial

Respondents (%)

Source: BCG 2018 Digital Government Benchmarking. Note: Response options range from 1–7, where 1=“totally disagree,” and 7=“totally agree.” All responses are shown except for “4=neutral.” Net perception reflects total “agree” less total “disagree.”

Exhibit 1 | Support for Deployment of AI in Government Varies by Use Case



• Citizens were most concerned about the potential ethical issues, as well as lack of transparency in decision making, and expressed significant anxiety about AI’s potential to increase automation and the resulting effect on employment.

A Cautious Optimism PrevailsCitizens generally feel positive about government use of AI, but the level of support varies widely by use case, and many remain hesitant. Citizens expressed a positive net perception of all 13 potential use cases covered in the survey, except decision making in the justice system. (See Exhibit 1.) For example, 51% of respondents dis-agreed with using AI to determine innocence or guilt in a criminal trial, and 46% disagreed with its use for making parole decisions. While AI can in theory reduce subjectivity in such decisions, there are still legitimate concerns about the potential for algorithmic error or bias. Furthermore, algorithms cannot truly understand the extenuating circumstances and contextual information that many people believe should be weighed as part of these decisions.

The level of support is high, however, for using AI in many core government deci-sion-making processes, such as tax and welfare administration, fraud and noncom-pliance monitoring, and, to a lesser extent, immigration and visa processing. Strong support emerged for less sensitive decisions such as traffic and transport optimization. (See the sidebar “AI Can Improve Traffic Management.”) Also well supported was the use of AI for the predictive maintenance of public infrastruc-ture and equipment such as roads, trains, and buses. Support was strong for using AI in customer service channels, too, such as for virtual assistants, avatars, and vir-tual and augmented reality.

Support emerged for the use of AI in medical diagnosis and image recognition (51% agreed), presenting significant opportunities for improving the speed and accuracy of medical diagnoses. (See the sidebar “Eye Disease Diagnoses Show the Power of AI.”) But citizens were slightly less confident about using AI to make

Traffic congestion is a major challenge in global cities and is likely to intensi-fy in the coming years due to popula-tion growth, urbanization, and demand for greater mobility.

Governments across the world are already using a range of technologies and approaches to harness the power of AI in tackling congestion on the roads, shortening journey times, and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

The benefits are impressive. In Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh’s AI-powered traffic lights optimize traffic flow and have reduced travel times by 15% to 20% and carbon dioxide emissions by 20%. In China, vehicle traffic monitor-ing notifies authorities of incidents in real time and helps them to identify high-risk areas for congestion and collisions. This has led to traffic speed increases of 15% and identification of traffic violations with 92% accuracy.

AI CAN IMPROVE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT



medical treatment recommendations, and their attitudes toward AI in medical use cases also varied widely by country.

On average, around one in five respondents answered “neither agree nor disagree” when asked about the use of AI for specific use cases. Governments should do more to engage, educate, and communicate with the public about the potential use cases, benefits, and trade-offs of using AI. In many cases, citizens may not even be aware that their governments are already using AI to augment or automate some of these activities.

Support for Use of AI in Government Varies by Country While the results of the survey show some clear trends, a deeper review reveals both correlations among and divergences between different locations and age groups.

People in emerging markets tend to be more positive about government use of AI. We found that citizens in mature economies tend to show less support for govern-ment use of AI than those in emerging markets. For example, citizens surveyed in countries such as Estonia, Denmark, and Sweden, are least receptive to the use of AI, while the top three most supportive countries are China, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Indonesia.

Support for government use of AI correlates moderately with trust in government. Trust in institutions is essential if governments are to gain the support needed to roll out AI capabilities. We found that the countries where citizens are most supportive of AI were India, China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. This aligns closely with the countries that had the highest levels of trust in government on the 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer, the annual global survey. In descending order, the top four countries are: China, UAE, Indonesia, and India. (See Exhibit 2.) Our analysis also found that less developed economies and countries that have higher reported or perceived levels of corruption also tend to be more supportive of the

AI presents significant opportunities to improve the speed and accuracy of medical diagnoses. For example, two of the most common eye diseases are age-related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy. The optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans required to diagnose these diseases are highly complex, and professionals require years of specialized training to analyze and interpret the results. However, after training on fewer than 15,000 scans, Google’s DeepMind AI

learning algorithms were able to make referral suggestions for more than 50 critical eye diseases with 94% accura-cy. AI is already achieving and in some cases exceeding human performance, enabling faster and more accurate diagnoses and better treatment of patients with eye conditions.

EYE DISEASE DIAGNOSES SHOW THE POWER OF AI


https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/how-to-make-ai-work-in-government-and-for-people/


use of AI: Saudi Arabia (57th), China (77th), India (81st), and Indonesia (96th). (See Exhibit 3.) This could be interpreted as a preference by citizens for AI-based decision making over human decision making where there is less confidence in the machinery of government. Millennials and urban dwellers are more support-ive of the use of AI. Younger people (ages 18–34) were most supportive of the use of AI by government, with 57% in favor. Younger respondents were also less likely than older people to disagree with the use of AI (21% versus 29%, respec-tively). People living in densely populated urban areas were the most supportive of the use of AI, with 61% agreeing with its use, compared to people living in suburbs (52%), residents of towns or small towns (50%), and residents of regional, rural, or remote areas (43%).

Younger citizens and city dwellers also expressed the least worry about AI in re-sponse to the question: “What concerns you most about the use of AI by govern-ments?” (See Exhibit 4.) While attributing causality to the different views across cohorts is difficult, our survey results tend to mirror population attitudes toward technology in other surveys, which usually reflect relative experience, digital matu-rity, and adoption rates. This suggests that support for use will naturally increase over time, but also highlights the need for governments to target communications to the concerns of different audiences to build support for adoption.

Addressing Citizens’ Concerns About AIThe ethical implications of AI use are among the top concerns of citizens. Howev-er, the overall level of concern is lower than expected. When asked about potential concerns around the use of AI by governments, 32% of citizens expressed concern that significant ethical issues had not yet been resolved, and 25% were concerned about the potential for bias and discrimination. The other major concerns were the perceived lack of transparency in decision making (31%), the accuracy of the

R2=0.5616

Net perception (%)

–10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

20

40

60

80

Edel

man

Tru

st B

arom

eter

Sweden USA

AustraliaGermany

Canada

South KoreaUK

Netherlands

Argentina

France

Russia

Hong Kong

Singapore

PolandJapan South Africa

Malaysia

United ArabEmirates Indonesia

China

India

Sources: BCG 2018 Digital Government Satisfaction Survey; Edelman Trust Barometer 2018.

Exhibit 2 | Trust in Government Correlates Moderately to Support for Use of AI



results and analysis (25%), and the capability of the public sector to use AI (27%). The overall level of concern about government use of AI at this stage appears to be relatively low. This finding could be because adoption is still in its early stages or because there is a low level of awareness of the potential risks—or both. How-ever, citizens are very concerned about the impact of AI on jobs. (See Exhibit 5.) When asked about the implications of AI for the economy and society, citizens ex-pressed significant concerns about the availability of work in the future (61% agree), the need to regulate AI to protect jobs (58% agree), and the potential im-pact of AI on jobs (54% agree).

Respondents are relatively evenly divided between agreeing and disagreeing on whether their countries’ tax, education, and welfare systems are adequately set up for a world in which AI is pervasive. For example, if AI does in fact lead to a dra-matic decrease in employment, how will welfare and education systems respond? What effect will that have on taxation and the way governments fund their activi-ties? The same is true when it comes to whether governments are doing enough to manage the impact of technology on the workforce and economy or to engage with the community on the impact of AI.

What This Means for GovernmentThe results of our survey have important implications for governments as they con-sider how they use and develop policies in relation to AI.

Use case selection and addressing ethical issues are paramount in assuaging citizen concerns. Citizens are clearly worried about the removal of human discre-tion in certain decisions, particularly in more sensitive domains such as health care and justice. Perceptions of bias and discrimination are major factors that affect use

Net perception (%)

–20

R2=0.5023

40 20 0 60

Australia

Kazakhstan

ChinaIndia

Corr

uptio

n in

dex

(201

7)

Japan

Morocco

Saudi Arabia South Africa

South Korea

Indonesia

Singapore

Malaysia

Russia

Estonia

Poland

Germany

Austria

USA

Denmark

Argentina

Netherlands

France

Hong Kong

UnitedKingdom

Canada

Norway

High

Low

United ArabEmirates

Sweden

Switzerland

New Zealand

Sources: BCG 2018 Digital Government Benchmarking; Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2017.

Exhibit 3 | Support for Using AI in Government Correlates Moderately With Perceived Corruption



case selection. AI has the potential to reduce human biases—both cognitive and social—that influence human decision making. In cognitive biases, for example, humans rely disproportionately on the first piece of information they encounter, rather than weighing all information dispassionately. Social biases are based on prior beliefs and worldviews and sometimes manifest in discrimination. Algorithms have the potential to minimize both noise and bias from decision making. For example, algorithms can weigh all inputs exactly as instructed.

However, eliminating bias is very difficult. AI learns from data, much of which has been generated from human activity. Unfortunately, those activities include human bias; thus it is possible to create systems that magnify and perpetuate prejudices that are already present. Creating models free from that bias remains a significant technical challenge. For example, a study in the US showed the COMPAS (Correc-tional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) system used to estimate the likelihood of recidivism in criminal offenders has racial biases. In some cases, such as black box models, it may be impossible to understand how a recommendation or decision was derived, and thus also to meet traditional govern-ment requirements for explainability, transparency, and auditability. This is espe-cially true of the more complex tools such as neural networks and deep learning.

Governments will need to select carefully how and where they launch pilots and eventually scale them. When identifying use cases that will deliver the greatest benefit from experimentation, governments will need to balance the difficulty of implementation with the benefits, including the potential impact for citizens, the reusability and applicability of a use case to other needs, and the opportunity to re-duce costs and free up resources for other uses.

Disagree Agree Netperception

NetperceptionDisagree

Age Location

Agree

Respondents (%) Respondents (%)

0–60 60–30 30

60+ Rural andremote

50–59 Town orsmall town

35–49 Suburb

18–34 36%

30%

19%

19%

42%

26%

22%

9%

Urban

–30–60 0 30 60


Exhibit 4 | Younger People and Urban Residents Show the Most Support for AI in Government


https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing

https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/%3Fgclid%3DCj0KCQiAtbnjBRDBARIsAO3zDl8oa2DNFKQg5Z11R6TeJycv5fw-baT01ouNa7P7R6-oSyH3bXCKuXkaAlAcEALw_wcB


Governments should also consider how to involve citizens in these pilots. Switzer-land, for example, is exploring resettling asylum seekers in different parts of the country using AI. From late 2018, the Swiss State Secretariat for Migration and the nonprofit Immigration Policy Lab will test a new, data-driven method for assigning asylum seekers to cantons across the country. Asylum seekers in the pilot will be as-sessed using an algorithm designed to maximize their chances of finding a job. The algorithm will allow officials to resettle individuals in the canton that best fits their profile, rather than allocate them randomly. The program will then follow these asylum seekers over the next several years, comparing their employment rates to those of others who entered the country at the same time.

Pilots should be publicized, tracked, and reported on, not only to demonstrate the value of AI but also to build public trust and create transparency. Communication and education will play a large part in building this trust as governments roll out increasingly advanced applications of AI to their policy and delivery environments.

Trust and integrity in government institutions must be built—or rebuilt. Transpar-ency is very important to citizens and should be high on the agenda for govern-ments. This means being clear about the ethical implications of AI, as well as about how it will—and will not—be used.

Disagree Agree

20 6040 80–20–40 0

43%

43%

38%

16%

7%

5%

3%

–1%

–1%

I am concerned there will not be enough work foreveryone in the future

Governments should regulate the use of AI toprotect jobs

I am concerned about the potential impact of AIon jobs

I am not concerned because new jobs will becreated to replace those that are eliminated

Our current tax system is adequate to cope withgrowth of AI

Our education system is adequately preparing ourchildren for the jobs of the future

Governments are doing enough to manage the impactof technology on the workforce and the economy

Governments are doing enough to engage with thecommunity on the impact of AI

Our current welfare and social security system isadequate to protect those affected by AI

Respondents (%)

Netperception


Exhibit 5 | Citizens Are Concerned About the Impact of AI on Jobs and the Need for Associated Regulation



Governments need to underscore the role of humans in government decision making. In some cases, AI alone can be used to make decisions, but in many others AI should augment human judgment and support decision making. Checks need to be put in place, as well as mechanisms through which citizens can raise concerns. And govern-ments should measure and be transparent about the quality of AI recommendations.

Appropriate oversight of AI will be critical if citizens are to have confidence in its use by government. Legal and regulatory frameworks may need to be enhanced, and a code of conduct or rules for the ethical use of AI code should be created. Transparency helps ensure the algorithms that underpin AI are reliable and pro-tected from manipulation, but the difficulty of providing it increases with the com-plexity of the algorithms.

Regulation needs to be carefully thought out, balancing the need to limit govern-ment use of individuals’ personal data and AI, while allowing government to inno-vate in the use of the technology. Putting rules and accountability frameworks in place will reassure citizens that AI is being used responsibly and ethically. Given the importance of AI to future economic, geopolitical, and security positioning, it is critical that governments have the support of their citizens for its use.

Addressing genuine concerns about the future of work is critical to building citizen acceptance of AI. The confluence of recent developments in big data, cloud-based computer processing power, and neural networks (which are modeled loosely on the human brain and nervous system to recognize patterns) has fueled and acceler-ated the developments in AI. And with the news media and others focusing on the rise of robots and their potential effect on humans, it is not surprising that poten-tial job losses resulting from the use of AI emerge as one of citizens’ key concerns. The fear of “technological unemployment” as machines become dominant in the economy is real. Whether this threat will materialize is another matter entirely. However, unless governments address fears of potential job insecurity and general uncertainty—through public dialogue and policies that provide a safety net for those most affected—these perceived threats could create a significant barrier to the development of AI.

Citizens should be supported and empowered to navigate new career pathways through lifelong learning strategies and more tailored career guidance. Govern-ments should prepare for the substantial workforce transitions ahead through policy measures such as the expansion of social safety nets, provision of more tar-geted reskilling and upskilling programs, and more effective job matching and job placement services.

Government needs to build AI capabilities inside the public sector. As they adopt AI, governments need to educate themselves and prepare for wider AI rollout by building internal capabilities and setting clear data strategies such as those being pursued by Singapore. (See the sidebar “Case Study: Singapore Smart Nation and Digital Government Group.”) The technologies are evolving rapidly, which means ministers and public servants need a basic understanding of AI. (See “Ten things every manager should know about artificial intelligence,” BCG article, September 2017.) While this may take time through recruitment and upskilling, they can

Given the importance of AI to the future, it is critical that governments have the support of their citizens for its use.


https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/2017/technology-digital-strategy-ten-things-every-manager-should-know-about-artificial-intelligence.aspx

https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/2017/technology-digital-strategy-ten-things-every-manager-should-know-about-artificial-intelligence.aspx


Singapore uses AI and advanced analytics in areas such as mobility, health, and public safety. Formed in May 2017, the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group leads efforts across government to integrate cutting-edge technological capabilities into the provision of government services.

The group promotes application of AI technologies across government, including coordinating between agencies, industry, and the public; developing digital enablers and platforms; and driving the digital transformation of the public service.

As government agencies employ more sophisticated technologies, data privacy will become a priority. In Singapore, the Public Sector (Governance) Bill of January 2018 formalized agency data-sharing frameworks, including conducting regular audits, removing personal identifiers where appropriate, limiting access to sensitive personal data, and introducing criminal punish-ments for data-related offenses.

Government uses of AI in Singapore are diverse and include:

• Assistive Technology, Analytics, and Robotics for Aging and Health Care. RoboCoach (a robot) helps to provide physical and cognitive therapy to seniors who have suffered strokes or have disorders such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s.

• Smart Homes. Smart devices available in some homes include a system to monitor the elderly and provide peace of mind to

caregivers, and a utility manage-ment system that helps with household utilities usage.

• Preventing Corruption in Procurement. AI algorithms analyze HR and finance data, procurement requests, tender approvals, and workflows to pick up patterns to identify and prevent potential corruption in government.

• Matching Job Seekers with Positions. Machine learning and text analysis identify skills re-quired for jobs and prioritize search results according to the relevance of the job seeker’s skills.

• Traffic Management. An express-way monitoring and advisory system uses technology to detect accidents, vehicle breakdowns, and other incidents, and provides real-time travel time information from the expressway’s entry point to selected exits.

• Lamppost-as-a-Platform. Sensors on lampposts monitor air quality and water levels, count electric scooters in public places, and collect footfall data to support urban and transport planning.

CASE STUDY: SINGAPORE SMART NATION AND DIGITAL GOVERNMENT GROUP


https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/2018/bridging-trust-gap-personal-data.aspx


accelerate the acquisition of expertise by embarking on partnerships with compa-nies, startups, universities, and others. Identifying the right mix of current and future skills will be critical to enabling government organizations to scale up their AI-related efforts.

Similarly, governments will need to bolster their data management capabilities, as the adage “garbage in, garbage out” rings especially true for AI. Ensuring the avail-ability of accurate and reliable data is essential for AI tools to deliver the correct decisions. Sourcing appropriate data sets not just from within an organization but also externally should be high on the list of priorities for governments so they can “train” AI algorithms appropriately.

Governments need to focus their attention on educating citizens, creating transpar-ency, and putting in place programs and policies to support the rollout of AI in government. They also need to begin adopting AI in a thoughtful way, soliciting feedback from citizens in the process to help build citizen support for AI.

Artificial Intelligence holds great potential for governments as they seek to enhance the efficiency and impact of the services they deliver. However, as

with any changes to the way policy making is executed or services are delivered, cit-izens may have concerns about the changes, particularly when they are being driv-en by complex, rapidly evolving technologies that may be hard to understand and for which the implications and unintended consequences are as yet unknown. For this reason, governments need to continue to move forward but also tread carefully when looking to harness the power of AI. Transparency into where and how AI will be used in government will be essential to establishing the legitimacy of the tech-nology in citizens’ eyes and to mitigate their concerns about any negative effects it might have on their lives. Given the speed of technological change, this work must be done sooner rather than later. The good news is that there are many areas where citizens understand the efficiency benefits of the technology. However, if governments want to secure public support, they need to implement AI applica-tions rapidly and unlock its potential, while simultaneously building trust and cre-ating mechanisms to increase transparency. For governments, as for many organiza-tions, the digital era could be transformative—but only if they are able to bring their citizens with them on the journey.



About the AuthorsMiguel Carrasco is a senior partner and managing director in the Sydney office of Boston Consulting Group. He is the leader of DigitalBCG in the firm’s Public Sector practice. You may con-tact him by email at [email protected].

Steven Mills is an associate director in the firm’s Washington, DC, office. You may contact him by email at [email protected].

Adam Whybrew is an associate director in BCG’s Sydney office. You may contact him by email at [email protected].

Adam Jura is a senior knowledge expert in the firm’s Sydney office. You may contact him by email at [email protected].

AcknowledgmentsThe authors offer their sincere thanks to Evan Stubbs, Grantly Mailes, Aurelie Granger, and other BCG colleagues for their help compiling this report, as well as Adrian Brown and Danny Buerkli from the Centre for Public Impact, a BCG foundation. They also thank Sarah Murray and Louise Moss for writing assistance, Joseph Hsiao for research support, Deepti Pathak for marketing assis-tance, and Katherine Andrews, Gary Callahan, Lilith Fondulas, Kim Friedman, Gina Goldstein, and Christine Hall for contributions to editing, design, and production.

For Further ContactIf you would like to discuss this report, please contact one of the authors.


mailto:carrasco.miguel%40bcg.com?subject=

mailto:mills.steven%40bcgfed.com?subject=

mailto:whybrew.adam%40bcg.com?subject=

mailto:jura.adam%40bcg.com?subject=

For information or permission to reprint, please contact BCG at [email protected].

To find the latest BCG content and register to receive e-alerts on this topic or others, please visit bcg.com. Follow Boston Consulting Group on Facebook and Twitter.

© Boston Consulting Group 2019. All rights reserved.3/19


bcg.com


the citizen’s perspective on the use of ai in government

Documents